Woman Admits Sending $400K To Nigerian Scammer 857
svnt writes "Janella Spears wiped out her husband's retirement account, remortgaged their paid-for house, and took out a lien against the family car in an attempt to cash in on the deal. A undercover officer involved with the investigation called it the worst example of the scam he's ever seen. Thoughtfully, Spears has gone public with her story as a warning to others not to fall victim."
I'm amazed (Score:2, Insightful)
not only that she never heard of these kinds of scams.... but that no one who could have talked her out of it before then had either...
Canada Bill Jones would be proud (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is immoral to allow a sucker to keep their money."
Awful (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
"For more than two years, Spears sent tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Everyone she knew, including law enforcement officials, her family and bank officials, told her to stop, that it was all a scam. She persisted."
Slashdot is not exactly going to be a sympathetic crowd here. What we have is an intelligent person who ignored every single bit of advice from a multitude of sources in favor of outright greed. So now she wants to warn people, but is it really going to do any good? She clearly would have ignored the advice she is now giving.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:3, Insightful)
The average person does have better common sense than that. Probably less than one in one thousand people falls victim to these scams (number pulled out of my ass, but I'd bet that it's far less than that), meaning that the vast majority of people have the basic smarts to avoid them.
just to preempt all of the obvious comments (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, for most of us here on slashdot, this is incredibly brain dead, but in general, there is a problem with you if you blame the victim for a crime, no matter how foolish or stupid they acted
whether a rape victim for wearing revealing clothes, or a guy walking in a dangerous neighborhood at night, yes: you can attack the victim, but if you want to actually claim any moral highground (which many of you seem to assume with a withering condescending tone as you blame the victim), the person who bears 100% responsibility and accountability for a crime is the criminal themselves, and only the criminal, and no one else
using knowledge and care to avoid crime is of course an important aspect of any behavior, but just because someone fails to do this, for any reason, does not mean they share blame for being victimized: a transgression is a transgression is a transgression. no one ASKS to be victimized in such a horrible way
if you walk by the front door of a house, and the house is wide open, and no one is home, and in plain site is a stack of 20 dollar bills, you are 100% responsible and culpable if you take that stack of $20s. the person who left them there like that is, yes, pretty stupid. but they deserve zero blame. the criminal, ALWAYS the criminal is responsible for the trangressions that the criminal freely chooses to commit
any other opinion on the issue is, frankly, not morally or philosophically coherent
although, for some you then, by all means, heckle the woman who gave away $$00K, since some of you honeslty and openly claim no moral high ground
Re:just to preempt all of the obvious comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but that's simply wrong.
There are certain actions which you can take which, while not in any sense illegal, are virtually guaranteed to cause harm to yourself.
Leaving a stack of money out for anyone to take is one of these. Playing along to an internet scam is another. And although I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying so, teasingly parading past men in a bad neighborhood while wearing a revealing outfit is another.
Your fallacy is essentially in assuming that blame is a percentage which must be portioned out among the actors involved in the event. It is true that if I leave a stack of money out in plain view it is 100% the fault of the criminal for taking it. It is also 100% my fault for being a complete idiot.
If I take an action which I know, or should have very good reason to know, will cause me harm even if that harm is illegal, then it is my fault for taking that action and I bear the blame for the consequences. It is also the fault of whoever actually does it to me, but that doesn't change the first part.
People like this woman cause crime by making it pay off for the criminals. She deserves a whole heap of blame, just as much as the scammers do.
Re:Awful (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet, somehow she thinks that sharing HER story with the world will convince other people? If only someone had shared their story with her, she could have avoided this terrible mess, so she's going to make sure it doesn't happen to others? Please. Even in acknowledging her stupidity, she shows no sense.
Re:The Nigerian scam is no more of a scam than... (Score:5, Insightful)
your view of morality is logically incoherent (Score:3, Insightful)
which is worse?:
1. man falls asleep at wheel of truck, smashes into bus full of kids, kills 10. feels awful about it
2. man carefully watches bus route for weeks, carefully plotting and calculating exactly when to smash into bus to kill children. he kills 2 children. he feels bad he didn't kill more
#2 is absolutely many times more criminal than #1, even though he killed far less children. because of a magic concept which all legal codes understand: intent
any legal code in the world has a difference of understanding between manslaughter and murder, with the punishment for murder being far worse than manslaughter. the magic difference? intent
do you know what intent is? you apparently do not, it currently does not inform your opinions
if you leave a stack of $20s out, you are thoughtless. you have no intent. therefore, you have committed no crime. meanwhile, if you walk into an open door and take the stack of $20s, you have a clear intent to commit a transgressive act and relieve someone else of something valuable which is not yours. you, and you alone, are culpable for what you have done
the magic concept?
intent
intent underlies all readings of morality in all cultures, for clear and obvious reasons of logical and philosophical coherence on the question of right and wrong
Re:Wrong crowd (Score:3, Insightful)
She clearly would have ignored the advice she is now giving.
Yes but at that time she would have had money and a goal to work towards. Now that she lost everything all she can shoot for is a little attention.
Re:your view of morality is logically incoherent (Score:5, Insightful)
Intent has nothing to do with blame.
I'm not talking about how much people should be punished. As far as I'm aware that was not even brought up in the thread. I am talking about whose fault a particular outcome is.
If I carry out an action with well-known consequences then I am at fault for those consequences. This is true whether I'm parking illegally and getting a ticket, climbing a tree in a thunderstorm and getting struck by lightning, or giving a scammer money and getting ripped off.
Certainly, what the scammer did was morally and legally wrong and what this woman did was not. But that is orthogonal to the fact that it is this woman's fault that she got ripped off. (And it is also the scammer's fault for ripping her off.)
This is how we get out of debt! (Score:2, Insightful)
And all you people doubted our President's intelligence! He's opening additional revenue streams to get us out of debt.
I can only hope and pray that Obama, having African blood and thus being more closely related to our Nigerian friends, will be able to expand this source of government revenue.
I blame her husband (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:just to preempt all of the obvious comments (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if you try to cross a 4 lane highway during rush hour and you end up underneath a truck, no blame should be put on you?
Your logic relies heavily on the word "criminal". That's quite problematic, as its definition is not absolute. Crossing a highway IS criminally stupid. Falling for a well known scam and ignoring every warnings one is given is as stupid (though generally not as deadly). Spears saw it coming and didn't react, she is partially to blame for what happened to her.
Re:just to preempt all of the obvious comments (Score:5, Insightful)
She gave the scammers money because they promised millions of dollars in return. Unlike a rape or armed robbery, it's the greed of the scam victims themselves that lures them into the scheme. Thus, they have some culpability in the crime that someone attacked on the street does not.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Nigerian scam is no more of a scam than... (Score:4, Insightful)
Her thought process is exactly the same as a gambling addict. The ethics of casino's and Nigerian scammers are different, but she belongs at Gamblers Anonymous.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
That's my thoughts--anyone as DUMB as she is won't believe her!
But this is beyond stupidity--she is clearly mentally ill and you've got to wonder why the husband, banks, family members ALLOWED this to go on. It wasn't like no one knew what she was doing. Why couldn't they have her name removed from accounts and not allowed access to the funds...declare her mentally unfit or whatever it took?
This is similar to those stories you hear once and awhile on how some old person spent thousands on magazines they didn't need, thinking it would help them win the Publisher's Clearing House prize.
Re:dude (Score:5, Insightful)
You're the one who seems confused here.
There are three utterly separate concepts at play here, and you seem insistent for reasons I cannot comprehend to squish them all into a single idea:
Any combination of these three ideas can be found in real life. As there are eight different combinations I'm not going to bother coming up with examples of all of them, but it should be pretty clear that they can happen.
Note that I am not talking about punishment, or anything of the sort. The scammers should be punished, end of story. But that doesn't change the fact that it was this woman's own damned fault for being such an idiot that she got scammed. That doesn't mean I think that she deserves it or that she should be punished or anything like that. Please, if you are going to argue, argue based on what I actually say and not these crazy ideas you imagine I believe.
Re:Remortgaged the house? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, they see their money right away after they've securitized the loan into a credit deriviative and sold it on the international investment market. Then it is the next sucker's problem.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:3, Insightful)
Mean [wikipedia.org], Median [wikipedia.org] and Mode [wikipedia.org]. In a world of 99 uniform dumbasses and 1 genius, 99% would be below mean intelligence.
Not sure where you get the 50% from.
Re:Wrong crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have is an intelligent person who ignored every single bit of advice from a multitude of sources in favor of outright greed.
Your use of the word 'intelligent' is debatable.
Nigerian scam 'victims' are criminals themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Blaming the victim in this case is perfectly legitimate. Most long cons like this involve an appeal to the element of criminality on the part of the victim. Why would this woman think that she is entitled to pull millions of dollars worth of free money out of Africa?
The basic Nigerian scam depicts a corrupt official stealing money who 'needs your help'. To fall for it isn't just stupid, it's venal.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:2, Insightful)
If you really believe the last line of your post, then you are more foolish than the woman this article is about. I would love to hear you tell Ravi Zacharias or Josh McDowell to their faces that they don't understand logic.
NOT Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
This woman wanted money she didn't earn, and got what she deserved.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:just to preempt all of the obvious comments (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see what's disturbing about assigning fault if you carry out an action which has obvious consequences.
The rest of your post is all completely irrelevant because it addresses points that I simply did not make. At no point did I ever state that the criminal should not be held responsible. He should. But if the victim did something that obviously leads to the crime being committed, then the victim is also at fault.
Blame is not something that needs to be portioned out so that it can add up to 100%. If you leave a stack of money out in plain view, and your neighbor takes it, then your neighbor is 100% guilty of theft as you say. However you are also 100% at fault for that theft, because you either knew or should have known the consequences of that action when you carried it out.
And the simple fact is that people like this woman do cause crime. Maybe you don't like it, but it's a fact. If everybody were smart enough to avoid these scams, then the scammers would not longer carry them out. Obviously this is not actually something that can be accomplished, so it's kind of a useless thing to know, but it's still true.
She's voting for Palin in 2012, isn't she? (Score:2, Insightful)
Downmod me all you want fuckers, you know she's gonna do it!
Re:I blame her husband (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people think that there are things in this world which are more important than money... a couple of them being trust and love. I think if and when you figure this out you will be a lot better off.
Re:Here is step 4. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad but true. In an effort to fight misogynist sexism, certain laws have become misandrist. For example, here in Brasil, it requires little evidence to send a man to jail if he is accused of rape. An angry girlfriend, for example, can have sex with the man, then go to the police, have an exam that shows they indeed had sex, and based on this have him arrested for rape (not necessary to prove the sex was forced). An impoverished man will then linger in the jail for months or years, waiting for the public attorney. And remember what happens to inmates accused of rape.
Misandry is wrong, just like racism against whites (or, in these times of euphemism and political correctness, "affirmative action") is wrong and probably unconstitutional in many countries.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
Until you get paid, it's not a high-yield investment; it's a high-risk investment.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
3-4 years to recover (Score:4, Insightful)
Call me amoral, but if she makes enough money that it only takes 3-4 years to get out of $400,000 in debt, I don't feel bad for her.
I'm sure there are people blowing a couple year-s salaries in Vegas every day... they only have slightly better odds then her at getting money and are just as gullible.
I don't understand. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I don't get it.
I'm not particularly ambitious, corporate-ladder wise, but I make decent money IMO.
But I'm not insanely stupid with my money, either.
Yet I don't have $400,000 to blow.
If I did, I sure as fuck wouldn't give it to MR AKELE MBUMBA OF NIGERIA.
What I don't understand is: How does someone so stupid have so much money?
Anyone?
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
But she was definitely stupid to ignore *everyone's* advice. I feel sorry for her husband.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Janella Spears doesn't think she's a sucker or an easy mark.
Many people like to believe that they are basically intelligent. They may readily admit that they don't know everything, but insist that they have a pretty good handle on most (if not all) of the really important things.
Far fewer people are actually willing to take the actions necessary to make such a belief true. Being "basically intelligent" requires that one make study and reflection part of one's lifestyle. Stopping with that once one graduates from school more-or-less guarantees that one is not, and will never be, "basically intelligent."
The real problem I have with this is that stupid people are not only a danger to themselves; they are a danger to those around them. Stupid people vote in favor of harmful/oppressive laws (or candidates), drive dangerously, harm the economy through poor money-management practices, harm their friends and family (sometimes emotionally, sometimes financially, sometimes physically) through stupid lifestyle practices, and so on.
In my opinion, it is every human's moral obligation to regularly invest a portion of their week to the business of improving their own cognitive abilities. And I don't just mean memorizing facts, but also engaging the mind's critical thinking capacities. One must be presented with genuine intellectual challenge in order to improve intelligence. One must, in other words, do things that are hard, since sticking with easy tasks will not produce the desired result.
And for God's sake, read Personal Finance for Dummies. If you haven't read it, stop trying to convince yourself you already know how money works. The book costs 15 bucks...just freaking READ IT!
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I blame her husband (Score:2, Insightful)
Incredible! (Score:1, Insightful)
Incredible. Your posts are so well argued, so well thought out, so coherent and so well spelt. I almost forgot I was on Slashdot.
But, your lack of capitalization and irreverent and lacking use of punctuation robs your message of value. It's a crime but, I can't figure out who shoulders the blame. Is it you or me?
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
But she is old and probably grew old before internet and probably never traveled much (considering her background, seemly very likely -teacher and a priest of some sort -both very local professions). So there is some reason why she believed everything she was told. And she spent till she could spend no more.
She is gullible, but now she is taking a very, very brave decision, which is to admit her mistakes publicly.
The hope here is that there are two thresholds to spending - one one the amount of information and the other on the amount of money.When you get to either of them you stop sending money to Nigeria
She clearly did not get to her threshold of info before she got to the threshold of money. Hopefully by sharing her story, she is raising the awareness in other people who may be being scammed and they will back out of the stupidity before they hit the threshold of money themselves.
Another way of looking at it is that while the cost of going public is very very high and she alone bears the costs, she hopes that there is some (small, LordKronos says) limited benefit to doing this. Moreover she wont reap the benefits, the public will. So what she is doing is actually a good thing.
I'll ignore her stupidity considering it has limited impact on me, but will applaud the fact she went public with the info (since it provides some benefit to me -if nothing else, helps calculating the odds of being conned).
If nothing else, show some concern for old people and people who are not as smart as you are. Brain does'nt remain what it is in the youth and this is inevitable for you an me
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually even worse than that. If the actions she *thought* she was taking were real, *she* would be committing a crime.
It's really, really, really hard to feel bad for someone who loses a lot of their own money while attempting launder money, steal from foreigners and foreign governments, and commit usury.
The real victim here is the husband.
Re:I don't understand. (Score:3, Insightful)
". . . her husband's retirement account. . ."
Sounds like, while it was legally 'her' money by virtue of the marriage, she wasn't necessarily the one who worked her whole life to build up that nest egg.
Still, I do feel sorry for her, even if she was kind of dumb, and for her husband (if he's still alive; I can't imagine he's still alive and allowed her to just empty their accounts; maybe he was brain damaged in an accident or otherwise out of the picture).
Re:I'm amazed (Score:1, Insightful)
One of the most irritating things to me, is that more intelligent and capable people than myself not only believe in the sky-fairy, but also delude themselves into thinking that he is somehow a benevolent entity.
It just goes to show, intelligence and intellectual honesty are not the same thing.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
An IQ of 100 is the 50th percentile. You have exactly half the world stupider than you, and half the world smarter than you.
Correction: what it means is half the world scores worse than you on some random test, and half the world scores better.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
153, last test I took.
Doesn't mean I'm motivated, good at life OR immune to being suckered in. Just good at solving puzzles, reasoning and logic problems.
Re:no, you won't blame yourself for being an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been an idiot many times. I have made stupid mistakes which cost me a great deal of time and money. I blame myself as much as is appropriate for those mistakes.
One time my wallet was stolen by a pickpocket. Of course the pickpocket gets the blame for this. But so do I. I was stupid. I stood in a crowded area known for pickpocketing and did nothing to protect my wallet. Logical consequence of these actions: my wallet was no longer there. Because this was my fault (AND the pickpocket's fault) I knew that there were things I could do to protect myself in the future. I learned my lesson, and have not been a victim of pickpocketing since.
I'm not enabling anyone. You seem to continually ignore the fact that in the class of crimes under discussion, I am blaming both the victim and the criminal. If the victim took knowing steps which resulted in the crime, then they absolutely deserve blame. This is a separate issue from the question of whether or not to blame the criminal.
Blame is not a zero-sum game. It does not get divided in half when you spread it to two people.
Sometimes something bad happens and nobody is at fault.
Sometimes something bad happens and everybody involved is at fault.
Sometimes something bad happens and only some of the people involved are at fault.
By examining cases in which I could potentially be involved, looking at who is at fault, and seeing what those people could have done to avoid the situation, I am able to learn from other people's mistakes.
Saying that you must never blame the victim puts you in a situation where you can never take any action to reduce your chance of being a victim. Which is simply not how the world works. You can absolutely take actions which reduce your chances of being a victim of crime, and you should.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is she actively disturbing evolution?
I think it's a good thing to take resources from the stupid, and give it to the smart. And that's what's happening. Even if you do not like it. :)
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
My mother works at a bank and she has to talk people out of these scams on a regular basis
I always knew that these scams were practically a national pastime in Nigeria, but what I didn't know is that not only do people still fall for these things (apparently in droves)... but often it takes a small army of professional hostage negotiators to talk them out of wiring their entire life's savings to a total stranger over in a country whose rate of societal corruption rivals OURS!!
The reality of it all is what blows me away!
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic rule of any con is that "You can't cheat an honest person".
Except for the "starving children" scams that prey on a person's honesty. Lots of those, and they like praying on religious communities.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish my school had that :(
I took an IQ test - well, 3 actually - with a psychiatric program in college, and tested 143, 144, and 143.
High school was four years of torture for me, and by the time college rolled around, I was so sick of sitting in classes listening to things I already knew, I just stopped going. My high school didn't offer anything AP or college prep, so I was stuck taking introductory-level classes in college.
I truly think that had I been challenged (or remotely interested) in high school, I would have excelled in college. As is, It's taken me five years to establish a decent work history and start to work myself back to where I was in the eyes of employers. I'm now in a position where my day consists almost entirely of problem-solving, and couldn't be happier..
Reading over that -- I'm not trying to talk myself up, but comment on how awesome that program is. I'm sure most of Slashdot can related to how I feel.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's the part that I don't get.
At what point did her husband take the stupid pill and forgot to take away her options of ruining him?
Re:I'm amazed (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think this is true. It's true that she listened to no one after she got sucked into the scam. That's normal psychology. In investment it's called throwing good money after bad. Bottom line, she didn't want to accept that everything she sent away so far was a loss, so instead she did the only other alternative -- she sent in more money. However, if she had been familiar with the scam before she sent anything, she probably wouldn't have fallen for it. So I think her point is legitimate. By making the scam even well more well-known than it is, fewer people will get sucked into it in the first place.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:3, Insightful)
Another good reason would be that most religious people he/she knows personally, are christians. While all religions are silly, the fact that well-educated people who grew up in a secular western society still prefer self-delusion to truth, is more puzzling than that somebody less fortunate choose so. After all, humans have had religion since early prehistoric times, and unless you get some proper education, it's unlikely that you'd stop right now.
Most atheists know more about religion than most religious people. Which is why most people who don't give it much thought end up as religious. I am atheist because I've studied various religions, and have discovered that they are all bullshit!
I still haven't heard of a church that wants married couples to avoid sex. I don't get it, do you believe christians shouldn't have kids either?
I don't have a satisfactory explanation either. That doesn't mean I will accept a claim that it was all created by some supernatural being(s). As a matter of fact, I don't understand the financial crisis either, but I certainly don't blame God for it.
I'm sure the grandparent poster is capable of thinking for himself. He is even telling exactly why religions is not thinking for oneself. This is not mudslinging, and there's no reason to stop doing it.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
You hit the nail exactly on the head.
Its not only sad, it seems to be a fundamental part of human nature. Witness the recent economic "meltdown". When the impulse to have that which you don't overpowers your common-sense - that's greed. People wanting to buy their own little mansion when common-sense tells you there is no way they can afford it? Greed. People wanting to push ridiculous loans on unsuspecting marks without thinking there would be repurcussions? Greed. Financiers buying "securitised" debt with one eye closed to the obvious flakiness of the underlying asset? Greed. Politicians and central bankers blithely greasing the wheels of this ridiculous machine by loosening regulation and increasing the money supply all the while trying to convince themselves and the public that its not all one big pyramid scheme? Greed.
For future reference:
Nothing comes out of nothing. Not energy and not money (defined here as actual, real purchasing power, not pieces of paper with funny symbols on it).
Out of interest, has anybody done any reading regarding the evolutionary basis of greed?
Re:I don't understand. (Score:2, Insightful)
She didn't have $400K to blow either. She mortgaged her home, depleted their retirement savings, and took a lien on their car.
$400K is not a lot when you're talking about net worth.
Re:Mod parent !funny! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because someone with points found it funny.
Perhaps we should all run our modding through you first to make sure we're getting it right?
Or perhaps people can just spend their points as they see fit.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:3, Insightful)
I mostly stuck it out with normal students, but I was classified Exceptionally Gifted / Learning Disabled so they really had no clue what to do with me. For example in Algebra II when I did the end of chapter homework for the next chapter without noticing. In class the next day I was like Hmm, I should probably pay attention next time, but what was I supposed to do when it took the class a 2 weeks to catch up to the idea that 3 unknowns in 3 equations was basically the same as 2 vs. 2 when I got that in around 5 seconds.
The basic problem seems to be once you start accelerating students they tend to graduate early without being ready for the next step. So what if I could have passed the GED at 12, I was still not ready for collage so what's the point.
Evolution of greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Greed is beneficial as long as the greedy individual can keep what he or she obtains. Greedy individuals can better support their offspring, who generally share their greedy genes. The balance between greed and altruism basically depends on the general wisdom of society. The more altruistic people are, the more greedy people can benefit, but the less altruistic people are, the less they benefit from cooperation. A stable point is where there is just enough altruism and greed to consume all the available resources without too many people getting upset and changing the gene pool with a shotgun.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to the taxpayers who have just bailed out Wall Street...
Re:I'm amazed (Score:3, Insightful)
Only problem with your solution - those who need it most will understand it least, and be most likely to deny being stupid, and therefore won't realize they are the target audience.
Good idea though.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
[...] I worked with the general public (retail sales, waiting, bartender) and by doing this it was made painfully clear that most people out there are fucked In the head [...]
You think that's scary? At some point, you will realize that you are one of those people.
Every couple of years reality will whack me across the face with a 2x4 and I'll realize that I've spent my whole life being an idiot about something.
As far as I can tell, that happens eventually to everybody except people who are crazy and/or dumb enough that they never notice their flaws. So now I've come to kinda sorta welcome the 2x4. It hurts like hell, but at least it's a chance to improve.
Re:Canada Bill Jones would be proud (Score:3, Insightful)
Aha, you're one of those smug assholes who think he's immune to any kind of con. Could I get your email? I have a friend with a business opportunity I'm sure you'll be interested in.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
To your point about stereotyping - one of the difficulties with fighting the stereotyping of religions is that the 'major' faiths (christianity, judaism, islam - lower case intentional) are dogma-based. It is very easy to stereotype a population that insists on jamming the basis for such stereotypes down everyone elses throats. I share a neighborhood with a bunch of jehovas' witnesses who insist that god wants them to keep knocking on my door and littering my mailbox, front walkway and car windshield with leaflets. Were I to stereotype them as being a bunch of people who spend their weekends littering other peoples homes and cars with leaflets, how far off the mark would I be? Would it be unfair of me? Most religious expression, in my experience, involves someone telling everyone around them, with great force and repetition, that things for which they have no actual proof are indeed true. If I generalize this behavior to religions in general, is that a stereotype, or in some way inappropriate?
Your pastor example wasn't terribly well-aimed, by the way - he was promoting sex among married christian couples. When your pastor starts encouraging sex between people who love each other, regardless of race, marital status or gender, I'll be impressed. The stereotype of christians isn't that sex is dirty, it's that sex with someone the church doesn't approve of is dirty - which appears to be the case here, no? Am I stereotyping when I suggest your pastor would be horrified at the thought of two men having sex every day for a week, or is that simply the truth?
I'd love an example of what we might find if we 'stopped stereotyping religions'. The problem is, if you look past the stereotypes and the denial of reason - and I'd be willing to look past those to some degree, because as you point out, we don't have all the answers on the 'science' side of the house either - you end up with intolerance and vitriol. Think I'm overgeneralizing? Try being gay in a christian, jewish or muslim community and see how you fare. The Anglican church tried to open up and tolerate gays and lesbians (I give them capitals for that) and what happened? The church is disintegrating.
Stereotypes can be helpful too - I was raised catholic. By associating priests with pedophilia (truly a stereotype, as pedophile priests are a tiny minority of the priesthood) I desensitized myself to the catholic symbols and mechanisms of oppression. Now, instead of seeing a 'father' I see a 'creepy pervert'. Such stereotyping helped flush the 'papal poison' from my memetic scheme.
Now, why again should we stop stereotyping religions and embrace them? I'll consider it when they stop stereotyping and start embracing everyone who does not believe as they do. When they stop mudslinging and worse, trying to deny the full, legitimate humanity of others based on *their* dogma, I'll grant them some respect. Until that time, given the chance, I will sling mud and take every shot, cheap or fair, that I can - I am still playing more fairly than they do.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:3, Insightful)
many people wrongly define greed (Score:2, Insightful)
-noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.
Not all desire for gain is greed.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not greed. It's avoidance of cognitive dissonance. Once people have some involvement in something, they tend to filter data which would make it untrue. It's the same thing that happens with militantly religious (or anti-religious) people; they gradually develop filters that allow them to preemptively exclude any data which might make them les comfortable with their amazing qualities and superiority.
It's hard to get someone to bite for a few hundred dollars on a scam -- but once you have that first part, it's very easy to keep getting more, because admitting that they were scammed would make them feel awful.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:2, Insightful)
Eh? What have the taxpayers to do with this? Was a special levy announced? So far, the taxpayers haven't paid one red cent for this...
Of course, the argument is that eventually they will have to pay for it. This is based on the assumption that the bailout fails. If the bailout fails, we'll have bigger problems to worry about. If it succeeds, we'll make money on the deal, as we usually do when we structure these aid programs correctly (e.g. the Chrysler bailout, or a more appropriate if less recent example, FDR's mortgage bailout -- both examples where we made money in the long run).
After all the things the government spends money on with no hope of making any money in the process, it seems kinda odd to be upset about them investing money in such a way that it might not only help a lot of people, but actually make money in the long run. This would be a great idea for the government to do all the time if only it didn't distort the market. That's the only reason it's a bad idea in general -- right now, though, the market's already so bent to hell that that's the least of our concerns...
Re:Evolution of greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny thing is that Richard Dawkins argues in "The God Delusion" that altruism might be equally beneficial to the evolution of the species. And he *is* an evolutionary biologist who makes a very good case for that view.
I for one believe in the mix. Greed without altruism is just as useless as altruism without any greed.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:2, Insightful)